Then you obviously disagree with the U.S. Supreme Courtin Balzac v. Porto Rico [sic], American InsuranceCompany v. 356 Bales of Cotton, and a host of othersimilar authorities which are cited, in detail,in the pleadings filed in People v. United Stateset al., published here in the Supreme Law Library.

Mookini is particularly on point, in light ofthe rules of statutory construction known as"inclusio unius est exclusio alterius" a/k/a"expressio unius est exclusio alterius".Confer in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition,for definitions. Literally translated, these are:"inclusion of one is exclusion of all others" and"expression of one is exclusion of all others".

I studied Latin for 5 1/2 hears.

The "United States District Court" [sic] ("USDC")is a territorial court, with constitutionalauthority which emanates from Article IV,NOT Article III, in the Constitution forthe United States of America. See Preamblefor the correct title of that Constitution.

To confound Article IV with Article IIIis to evidence a direct violation of the Separation of Powers doctrine. See New York v. United States, as cited inMeador's essay supra, for that citation.The federal zone, and the state zone,are geographically disjoint.

The USDC has no territorial jurisdiction withinthe 50 states of the Union. If you have anydoubt about the state you may now occupy,try calling Directory Assistance.

Having to repeat these key authorities so oftenis beginning to get rather boring, frankly.

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Counselor at Law, Private Attorney General,Federal Witness, and Candidate for theU.S. House of Representatives